Who Didn't Win an Oscar Who Should Have? (1 Viewer)

[Seth Paxton]

For me the romance of SiL was extremely powerful, which countered SPR's own emotional drama. In the end it came down to writing for me I think. SiL has a larger range of emotion and some very crisp dialog.

Don't get me wrong, SPR is outstanding too. Had SPR won it still wouldn't be a tragedy. Tragedy or mistake would be something like Patch Adams getting the Oscar over both of them. Honestly, I could even see a serious consideration being given to Elizabeth that year, though the fact that it was derivitive of Godfather (intentionally of course) hurts it as a "Best Pix" candidate.

In terms of how did the Academy come to pick SiL, well looking at my Best Pix formula (which picked SiL retroactively in testing) we see these items:

SPR had the PGA win and the Director wins (GG and DGA), but SiL also had Director noms, so while SPR had greater respect in direction, it wasn't a destruction.

SiL and SPR had at least 10 noms, but SiL had the most. Again, not a big gap, but enough to say that SiL might be seen as more "complete" in shining in more catagories.

SPR had actor noms where SiL didn't, but SPR didn't follow those up with wins. On the other hand SiL had actress noms AND wins. Clearly we know that one was a guy role film and the other was notable for a mix of roles that featured an actress. It's also noteworthy that Paltrow beat Blanchett who was more featured as the title character in Elizabeth than Paltrow (it was called Shakespeare in Love for a reason ). So Paltrow obvious had a large measure of respect from Globes/SAG/Academy.

SiL also had Supporing noms for both actor and actress while SPR did not (GG/SAG/Oscar). SiL didn't get wins for those, but again we are talking about a more complete or rounded acting ensemble.

Both pix got SAG ensemble noms, but SiL won it. See above.

Writing, both got noms, but it was SiL that was WINNING the writing awards (GG/WGA). I referred to the writing at the beginning of the post.

SPR won out in the Score and Editing catagories.


So I think what you see is that SPR is a BIGGER project requiring a strong director to hold the vision together. It is a showy piece of action production that is very impressive. But SiL is better in terms of writing and acting. It's smaller and more intimate, but also more well-rounded emotionally speaking.

The final score on my formula has this as one of the closest ever. Obviously both films were outstanding at being what they were.

This is why I get so spun up when people slam SiL as a horrible choice over the "obviously better" SPR. You don't have to prefer SPR, but you know what, if you can't see the quality in that film then I think it's time for a film study class to be honest. Taste is one thing, common sense film appreciation is another (as is the respect of other tastes). Not that I am thinking of anyone in this thread when I say that, just considering past debates on the subject.

 

[Lew Crippen]

May I suggest that people list what the snubbed movies or actors were up against? Psycho losing to the Apartment is not a travesty to me, the latter was an excellent film on it's own right. While the former proved to have had far more influence on cinema, it might not have been very obvious in 1960.

Concerning Kubrick, Hitchcock and others, some in this thread are guilty of the very thing they reproach the academy: Wanting to reward a body of work rather than individual achievement. Is it possible that for every year that a Kubrick movie was released, there was a more deserving winner?

A fair question, Holadem. As far as I’m concerned the Academy got it right with The Apartment. But there are plenty of other films and years. I’ve got a little list:

Kubrick

2000: Eyes Wide Shut. Nominations were American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, The Cider House Rules, Boys Don’t Cry, The Sixth Sense, Sweet and Lowdown, none of which (I think) will be remembered so much as Kubrick’s film.

1976: Barry Lyndon was up against One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Amarcord, Dog Day Afternoon, Nashville, not a bad set of films and at least it is hard to quarrel too much with the winner, though from a directorial standpoint it is for me a clear nod to Kubrick.

1972: A Clockwork Orange was up against The French Connection, Fiddler on the Roof, The Last Picture Show, Sunday Bloody Sunday. Another year with some stiff competition and the winner worthy of praise.

1969: 2001: A Space Odyssey was up against Oliver!, La battaglia di Algeri, The Lion in Winter, Romeo and Juliet. What more needs to be said.

1965: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was up against My Fair Lady, Alexis Zorbas, Becket, Night of the Iguana. Stiff competition and a worthy winner, though if it had gone Kubrick’s way that too would have been OK.

It would be my view that his films deserved to win in 2000 and 1969, was the better picture in 1976, probably not the better one in 1972 or 1965, but should have been in the running both times.

On balance, he should have won 2.5 Oscars.


Hitchcock

1959: Vertigo Nominations were Gigi, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The Defiant Ones, I Want to Live, The Inn of Sixth Happiness. To me, Hitchcock’s film is far superior to any of the noms.

1955Rear Window was up against On the Waterfront, The County Girl, The High and the Mighty, Sabrina. The winner has held up less well over the years, but at least it is a good film.

1947 Notorious Nominations were The Best Years of our Lives, Brief Encounter, It’s a Wonderful Life, The Killers, The Yearling. Not a bad winner, but as good as Notorious?

1941 Rebecca was up against The Grapes of Wrath, Kitty Foyle: The Natural History of a Woman, The Letter, The Philadelphia Story. I agree with the academy.

My view is that he had the best film in 1959 and probably in 1955, though this is less clear cut. He should have had an even chance in 47 and some chance in 41.

On balance, he should have won almost 2 Oscars.

I’d do this for Chaplin as well, but it is too much work.

I think that both were shortchanged, even when looking at the competetion.

 

[Arman]

quote: "2000: Eyes Wide Shut. Nominations were American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, The Cider House Rules, Boys Don’t Cry, The Sixth Sense, Sweet and Lowdown, none of which (I think) will be remembered so much as Kubrick’s film."

Sadly, Being John Malkovich & Boys Don't Cry (and deservingly Sweet and Lowdown) were not nominated that year. The Green Mile & The Insider are other nominated films.

That's my problem with the Academy, if they cannot pick and nominate the 5 best films, there is no way that they had been regaining credibility whenever they vote the "perceived best among the so so nominees" as the Best Picture of the year. Year 2000 (actually they voted for the Best of 1999) is a great example. 1999 is being regarded as the Best Year for Hollywood Films for Decades 80s & 90s. And everybody knows what happened ... a lot of brilliant, inventive & original films were snubbed. Missed opportunity. The Cider House Rules & The Green Mile as Best Picture? Oh, please ... sorry for the rant

 

[Arman]

Setting aside that oversight, I'm with Lew! My point in listing the brilliant & great (and to many they were the best for those given years they were made) films they (Hitchcock, Chaplin & Welles) made, none of them (not even one) got lucky to be honored as the Best Picture of the Year. I'm not saying that the Academy should honor (like what they did to Denzel Washington for Training Days & Al Pacino in Scent of A Woman) a filmmaker for his mediocre effort because he was snubbed for his excellent works in the past.

Is it really necessary to go over and over, and we really need to list the sins & the the injustices the Academy made especially to Hitchcock? We have been observing this circus called the Academy Awards for too long now. To the Academy, stop the showbiz politics when giving awards!

 

[Lew Crippen]

Sadly, Being John Malkovich & Boys Don't Cry (and deservingly Sweet and Lowdown) were not nominated that year. The Green Mile & The Insider are other nominated films.

Thanks for the correction. Sorry, I had a problem separating the ‘best’ film nominations from the ‘best director’ nominations and some of my pasting got away from me.

Nominated for ‘Best Director’ in 2000 were American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, The Cider House Rules, The Insider and The Sixth Sense

But to emphasize your point Arman, I have absolutely no clue as to why a somewhat clever film, with a touch of atmosphere (and fine acting) like The Sixth Sense would have been nominated in the ‘Best
Director’ category.

I accept that the Awards are geared toward commercial, Hollywood films, and really I don’t have too much of a problem with that, as it makes a lot of sense to reward your own. But still, best is best.

I only did this because of the Psycho/Apartment point made in an earlier posting. It is certainly possible that Stanley and Alfred came up against a juggernaut every time: just not likely.

And as it turned out, not true.

 

[Arman]

I'm not actually referring to your post (re: the necessity of posting proofs on how the Academy screwed Hitchcock & co.). I'm referring to some individuals here who believe that whatever the Academy says it's really the best of the best film for any given year and so be it. I'm for (re)educating (or for them not to allow uneducated members to vote) some members of the Academy!

Anyway, I forgot to thank you (Lew) for doing such works for me (and some posters here).

 

[Lew Crippen]

Ok, so I’m also irritated about Chaplin.

1941 The Great Dictator. I’ve already listed the noms that year. John Ford won over both Hitchcock (who at least got nominated) and Chaplin (who was ignored)

1937 Modern Times Nominated were Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Dodsworth, The Great Ziegfeld, My Man Godfrey, San Franscisco. Once again Chaplin does not make the list. While Capra’s film is very fine, it is not in the class of MT. This is an interesting outcome, where the winner is the story of a simple, sincere man at odds with the machinations of big city types, while Charlie is at odds with the soulless city itself. Apropos of not much, the ‘Best Picture’ winner was ‘Ziegfeld’ and there were a host of other nominations, most of which are little remembered today (e.g. Libeled Lady)

1932 City Lights. Nominations were Bad Girl, The Champ, Shanghai Express. About the only thing one can say is the King Vidor and Von Sternberg got jobbed as well—though Chaplin was not even nominated.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Arman,

I am not saying that the Academy picks the "best" film because no such film actually exists. There is only the best consensus film for that moment in time.

That our cultural understanding, our social morals, and our views on cinema change over time is unquestionable. These are all very serious factors in altering our perception of the "right" call in picking a best film.

In fact I would say that if you consider the Best Pix as a representation of where society is at at the time of the vote, then the Academy does an excellent job of acting as a time capsule.

2001 WAS NOT IMPRESSIVE to many critics, and certainly not fans, at the time of it's release. We aren't talking about a film that immediately swept across the nation as if Jesus spoke the words "2001 has been sent by God to you". I love 2001, tops my personal list, but let's keep in mind that in most ways Oliver does reflect the social climate more, the pre-counter culture movement that was just beginning.

And how can we see this? Well, just take a look at the Best Pix winners before and after this point. Just before it we had "In the Heat of the Night" win, but that left out Bonnie and Clyde, Cool Hand Luke, The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.

For 67 we have Man For All Seasons win, which strongly reflects the nomination that Lion in the Winter and Romeo and Juliet then got for 69 (even Oliver is a period piece). 67 is also the last year for separate color/B&W cinematography awards. We also have Sand Pebbles, which brings up the idea of how Viet Nam's growing presence was affecting cinema and it's reception which would soon come to the forefront.

Just after 2001 was left out we had yet another very similar mix of films, the musical (Hello Dolly), the period piece (Anne of 1000 Days), and Z (another sign of the political state at the time). But the change has come and a counter culture picture (X rated no less) wins (Midnight Cowboy). Butch Cassidy is also there as a bit of a counter culture western.

71 brought the real battle as the political establishment lobbied back and Patton was brought to the screen. Many see this as a move to maintain or regain social support for Viet Nam. It directly was in conflict to the other big nominee, MASH. Also 5 Easy Pieces was there as a counter culture flick. But also in the mix was a sign that people were already looking for a shift from this establishment/counter-culture battle. Airport was nom'd.

The following year French Connection began the string of crime films that swept the country and won awards (Godfather 1 and 2 and The Sting followed). People wanted action, violence and drama that was thick with reality, yet didn't remind them directly of the current state of the country.


So 2001 just didn't have a place in it's time, shoved aside in the battle between maintain innocence and shaking up the establishment. There was no room for experimental philosophical film to step in an win the big prize. In fact 2001 is the perfect example of a film that alienated society at the time.

Once we reached a different social setting where we were more comfortable with introspection, where outer turmoil subsided a bit and let in time for personal reflection, then 2001 took on greater significance. And perhaps had Clockwork Orange come just 2 years before it might have been the X rated film that took a stand instead of Midnight Cowboy.

In the end I think the science fiction themes hurt both films because it seemed as though themes presented in that genre just did not carry the same respect as the realism films of the day (like French Connection or Godfather). That's actually still true today. So that makes it even less of a shock really.



I will never say that the Academy always picks the best film on some all-time to everyone scale. In fact I can safely say that no one here could make those picks correctly either. But I will say that in the context of the time, considering the culture of the time and the momentum a film might have, that the Oscars do go to films that were really linking up with a large group of the current culture and almost always reflected what was considered good filmmaking at the time.

I have absolutely no clue as to why a somewhat clever film, with a touch of atmosphere (and fine acting) like The Sixth Sense would have been nominated in the ‘Best

Sounds like another person's description of just about every Hitchcock film. Certainly a case could be made that this is exactly what he was doing. So perhaps it was voters with exactly this attitude toward Hitch that kept him from winning every year.

After all, with 3 hits under his belt all in a similar format of clever, well-made, good acting, philosophical reflective at times, isn't MNS possibly on his way to a very Hitch-like career?

So I don't understand why you think Hitch deserved to win but MNS didn't even deserve a nomination for making a film that very much was considered in the Hitch vien of filmmaking.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

After all, with 3 hits under his belt all in a similar format of clever, well-made, good acting, philosophical reflective at times, isn't MNS possibly on his way to a very Hitch-like career?

I hope so!

I really like his work so far.

 

[Ray Chuang]

A couple of comments about Oscar snubs:

1. As for Annie Hall winning over Star Wars--in a way, this is not a surprise if you're a serious movie fan. Annie Hall was an excellent movie, and I consider this movie Woody Allen's best work besides Manhattan.

2. As for Gandhi winning over E.T.: The Extraterestrial--Gandhi won because of two factors, namely AMPAS voters are suckers for epic movies and AMPAS voters were a bit turned off by the marketing spinoffs from E.T.. Mind you, I thought Ben Kingsley was excellent playing Gandhi, though.

3. I have this feeling that they're trying to essentially give Martin Scorsese a de facto "Lifetime Achievement Award" by winning Best Director for Gangs of New York this year to overcome the Oscar snubs from the past. Mind you, I think Scorsese's best work was still Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, though.

4. I'm still somewhat surprised that A Color Purple went 0 for 11 when it was nominated for 11 Oscars. Was it that AMPAS voters weren't comfortable with the subject matter of this movie and decided to choose a safer choice in Out of Africa?

5. A number of recent movies like Do The Right Thing and Pulp Fiction were snubbed by Oscars in the final vote. I think the controversial subject matter of the former movie and the gratuitous violence of the latter movie turned off WAY too many AMPAS voters.

Folks, I think you have to be quite careful about what movie critics think deserve Oscar nomination and what movies the AMPAS membership chooses for the final nominations. In short, AMPAS voters shy away from any movie that tends to cause controversy, with very few exceptions.

 

[steve jaros]

3 worst robberies of past 15 years:


1) Sean Penn not winning for Dead Man Walking

2) ditto for Denzel in Malcolm X

3) ditto for Russell Crowe in a beautiful mind


for movies:

1) Pulp Fiction in 94

2) the Sweet Hereafter in 97

3) Do the Right Thing in 89

 

[Yee-Ming]

I still haven't seen A Beautiful Mind, but I'd venture to guess that he was hurt by the fact that he'd picked up the statue the previous year for Gladiator (not exactly a stand-out performance, but not bad), and the Academy presumably did not want to bestow on the bad boy the accolade of 2-in-a-row previously earned by Tom Hanks, Mr Good Guy personified.

add me to the list that think Pacino's for Scent of a Woman was really a lifetime achievement award, to balance his criminal losses in G1 and G2.

 

[steve jaros]

Yee, i agree. The academy often screws over the 'most deserving' actor because of politics, or because someone else is the sentimental favorite, etc.

Pacino was clearly a lifetime achiement awardee for 'scent' (as was henry fonda for 'golden pond'), while Crowe was screwed because he'd won it the year before, is a 'bad boy', and is NOT african-american...

 

[Lew Crippen]

Sounds like another person's description of just about every Hitchcock film.

I’d agree with films like The Lady Vanishes and Psycho, but I would never make that characterization for his films like Vertigo and Rear Window.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Judy Garland: A Star is Born
Montgomery Clift: A Place in the Sun

 

[Eric Bass]

I've written off the Oscars since it's rather like if you were watching the Superbowl and the clock ran out with the score 20-17 and the team with 17 points getting the title because heck they've been playing hard for the past few seasons and they sure deserve one by now, or no team in their state has won in a long time, or they are more popular with fans then the other team, etc etc etc. Oscars have very little if anything to do with who performed the best and everything to do with the academy's personal feelings on the matter.

 

[Holadem]

Lew

Thank you for the detailed reply. Unfortunately I have not watched most of those movies, so I am not in position to post an informed reply :b

Steve,

Pacino was clearly a lifetime achiement awardee for 'scent' (as was henry fonda for 'golden pond'), while Crowe was screwed because he'd won it the year before, is a 'bad boy', and is NOT african-american...

Yeah?

How about Denzel won, for the same reasons unfair reasons Pacino won for Scent of a Woman - because it was long overdue?

--
Holadem

 

[Lew Crippen]

How about Denzel won, for the same reasons unfair reasons Pacino won for Scent of a Woman - because it was long overdue?

I find it ironic that Pacino beat out (among others) Washington that year. Though I’m not surprised, as the role was in a Spike Lee film about one of America’s most controversial figures.

In a way it’s too bad that he won in a suspect role. Maybe its just me, but I sort of thought that while it was a role in which he got to chew up the scenery (or shoot it up depending on your view), his performance was not without considerable merit. The fact that Crowe, did not win in a role, which though quieter than the one in Gladiator, was also one where he got to chew up the scenery; but lost to a performance very similar to the one where he had won the year before I find to be most humorous.

As to the merits, I’d think of those nominated, Washington’s performance was superior to Tom Wilkenson’s and Will Smith’s and the equal of Penn and Crowe.

All in all, I was not that impressed with any of the lead actor’s performances last year. I suspect, looking at who might be nominated this year, that my view will be very different.

 

[Seth Paxton]

but I would never make that characterization for his films like Vertigo and Rear Window

Well, I agree that not only for these films, but for most of Hitchcock's films there is a lot more subtext going on beneath the surface.

However, on the surface these are 2 of Hitchs MOST gimmicky storylines. One involves a murder plot carried out by tricking someone with a look-alike, the other involves being unable to move and "witnessing" a murder from afar.

To me those plotlines have quite a bit in common with all 3 MNS films. But then on further analysis I think all 3 MNS films have more subtext in the narrative than that gives them credit for, as well as being visual masterpieces. Not just in narrative style (careful selection of what is shown) but also visual tone - not unlike Vertigo on both counts.

I'm not trying to turn this into a praise MNS thing or say that 3 films in and he's on his way. But I do see a definate contradiction to complain about the 6th Sense nomination just after lamenting Hitch not winning himself.

MNS is clearly influenced by Hitch and has made his first three films in a manner that strongly reflects Hitch's sensibilities without actually ripping off specific moments (unlike DePalma, who I also love but come on...).

So maybe there was some film fan back in 1960 saying the same thing about Pyscho or Rear Window that was just said about 6th Sense. It's something to think about and reflects my point about PERCEPTION AT THE TIME.


Again, I think Pulp Fiction is the better film. But it lost to Forrest Gump which was a pretty damn fine film itself. And given the fact that PF alienated MANY audiences I can understand how it wasn't the Best Pix winner.


I bring up this question more directly now - how do YOU incorporate the idea that some films exclude or alienate large sections of audiences with the idea of a film being the Best Pix?

Does a Best Pix have to be chosen from a group of films each resonating with a certain viewership, and each year one of those narrow groups gets lucky and gets their type of film as the winner? The idea being that the greatest films must by definition somehow more deeply touch some audiences, which will also by definition alienate many others who don't have the same moral, social, or aesthetic ideals as the target audience.

Or do we consider only the films that make the most money over a long period of time (eliminating the front loaded crap), since those are the films that capture some essential theme that crosses many boundries?

I think both ideas have to be, and are, considered when defining and choosing a best film.

With that stuff in mind, what are some of your definitions of "Best Film"? What qualities does a film have to exhibit to be deemed the best?

Perhaps that question will get us all on the same page in regards to which choices were the worst.



BTW, I also agree that politics in terms of "he has it coming" does play a part so that many people win for a lesser role after losing other times with their best roles. I think that has a LOT to do with Denzel's win and Crowe's loss (having won the year before). Color might have helped Berry a bit, but Denzel didn't need that sort of help. He had enough loss baggage already to keep Crowe from getting a very rare back to back win.



Also, BTW Lew, have you looked at the AFI list? Where are Rear Window vs Waterfront and Notorious vs Best Years. RW is at 42, Waterfront at 8. So much for not holding up. Notorious didn't even make the list, Best Years is at 37.

Now the HTF AFI revote changed a lot of that around, but my point is that the AFI IS critics and film historians, among other knowledgeable members. So neither loss is tragic even in today's standards. To say otherwise ignores at least some informed opinions. There is certainly nothing B&W about either loss.

Vertigo's loss is more troubling, though again it's worth noting the position the musical genre had in our culture at the time. MANY musicals won Oscars. Thrillers struggled a lot more at the time.

I can understand the not winning. I'm a bit more bothered by the lack of a nomination in each case, especially the visual masterpiece of Vertigo. I think a strong argument can be made for that, even in the context of that era.


I honestly think Hitch was in the process of creating a new sensibility with which we now think about film. But at the time people did not yet judge films on those types of merits. Just like the French New Wave or Film Noirs created new views of what cinema could be or should be.

As I said earlier, were Hitch working from 1970 to 2000 instead of 35-65 (roughly) I think he could have done just as well as Spielberg with Oscars. Of course you have to wonder if Hitch isn't the reason why SS is able to be accepted as a blockbuster maker AND artist at the same time because of the foundation Hitch laid out as I just said above.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Hopefully everyone realizes that I am enjoying the dialog which is why I keep coming back to read and respond. Don't let my long rants fool you into thinking I'm just pissed and arguing.


And now in a bit of irony, I'm off to watch Kung Pow on the HT. Don't worry, it's a rental. :p)